Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
169
EN BANC
G.R. No. 103567, December 04, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.
FRANCISCO SALLE, JR. Y GERCILLA @ "KA NONOY," RICKY
MENGOTE Y CUNTADO @ "KA RICKY/KA LIZA/KA JUN," AND
TEN JOHN DOES, ACCUSED, FRANCISCO SALLE, JR., Y
GERCILLA AND RICKY MENGOTE Y CUNTADO, ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS.
RESOLUTION
should be dismissed.[6]
After taking into consideration Section 19, Article VII of the
Constitution which provides that the President may, except
in cases of impeachment or as otherwise provided in the
Constitution, grant pardon after conviction by final
judgment, this Court resolved to require
1. The Office of the Solicitor General and the counsel
for the accused-appellants to submit, within thirty
(30) days from notice hereof, their respective
memoranda on the issue of the enforceability of the
conditional pardon; and
2. The Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail,
Release or Pardon to inform the Court, within ten
(10) days from notice hereof, why it recommended
to the President the grant of the conditional pardon
despite the pendency of the appeal.[7]
In a Comment submitted on behalf of the Presidential
Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release, or Pardon,
Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Nilo C. Mariano avers that
the Secretariat assisting the Committee has a standing
agreement with the FLAG and other human rights
organizations that it will recommend to the Presidential
Committee for conditional pardon by the President of
convicted persons who may have been convicted of crimes
against national security and public order or of common
crimes which appear to have been committed in pursuit of
their political objectives; and that where the said convicted
persons have pending appeals before the appellate court, the
lawyers of the said organizations, particularly the FLAG, will
take care of filing the appropriate motions for the
withdrawal of their appeal considering that presidential
pardon may be extended only to those serving sentence after
extended. Thus:
CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, the COURT RESOLVED
to DISMISS the appeal for having become moot and
academic. To avoid any possible conflict with the judicial
determination of pending appeals, the Court further
DIRECTED the Board of Pardons and Parole to adopt a
system which enables it to ascertain whether a sentence has
become final and executory and has, in fact, been executed
before acting on any application for parole or pardon. The
Court Administrator shall coordinate with the Department of
Justice on how this may be best achieved. (Emphasis
supplied).
Recently, in its resolution of 31 January 1995 in People vs.
Hinlo,[18] this Court categorically declared to be "in clear
violation of the law" the "practice of processing applications
for pardon or parole despite pending appeals." This Court
resolved therein as follows:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, in order to put a stop to the
practice of processing applications for pardon and parole
despite pending appeals which is in clear violation of the
law, the Court Resolved to:
1.
2.
3.
forth below. This rule shall fully bind pardons extended after
31 January 1995 during the pendency of the grantee's
appeal.
WHEREFORE, counsel for accused-appellant Ricky
Mengote y Cuntado is hereby given thirty (30) days from
notice hereof within which to secure from the latter the
withdrawal of his appeal and to submit it to this Court. The
conditional pardon granted the said appellant shall be
deemed to take effect only upon the grant of such
withdrawal. In case of non-compliance with this Resolution,
the Director of the Bureau of Corrections must exert every
possible effort to take back into his custody the said
appellant, for which purpose he may seek the assistance of
the Philippine National Police or the National Bureau of
Investigation.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the
President, the Department of Justice, the Board of Pardons
and Parole, and the Presidential Committee for the Grant of
Bail, Release, or Pardon.
SO ORDERED.